Janneke Huitink (2005), Anankastic Conditionals and Salient Goals, to appear in the proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 9.
Abstract In this paper I evaluate two recent analyses of anankastic conditionals, the designated goal analysis by von Fintel & Iatridou (2004) and the modal base restriction account of Penka, Krasikowa and von Stechow (2004). I will show that both theories make the wrong predictions in scenarios with multiple non-conflicting goals. To solve the problem, I propose that ordering sources select salient goals from the context of utterance. For anankastic conditionals the ordering source selects the goal described in the if-clause. At the end of this paper I present some arguments against the recent analysis of anankastic conditionals as counterfactuals by von Stechow, Krasikowa and Penka (2004).
I agree with Section 5 of Huitink’s paper. By the way, to see that anankastic are not conterfactuals one just needs to apply the tests you have presented in your own paper on conterfactuals. For instance, anankastic conditionals admit contrapositions, counterfactuals do not.
Unless, of course, von Stechow and others do not agree with your paper and have a different understanding of what counterfactuals are. In my humble opinion, I think that von Stechow et ali’s analysis rather treats anankastic conditionals as contrapositions.
I hope it is now possible to post comments.
January 26th, 2005, at 3:48 pm #